Page 322 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 31 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
cultural values we like to adopt, and that is important for all of us.
There must be some considerable unease about some aspects of this move. The symbolism is terrific, but two questions spring to my mind. What exactly are the costs involved, both hidden and apparent, in this move? And more importantly, who is going to pay those costs? These questions have been put to some extent to one side in the course of all the hoopla about the move of the Raiders.
Tina Turner tells us that what you get is what you see. I am being very cynical, but what I see in this move is that the ALP will get some votes out of it. Its enthusiastic support, particularly by Federal members, for the move does associate very directly with the votes entailed in that kind of support. Although I think that is a not unacceptable kind of political equation to work out, it is also one which bears a price tag. I think we, the Assembly, and the ratepayers and taxpayers of the ACT, should be fully entitled to know the price tag associated with that particular bit of long-term electioneering.
I understand there is about a $1m subsidy from the New South Wales Rugby League and presumably some contribution also from the Raiders themselves. The cost the ACT taxpayer is bearing appears - and I say "appears" without any better knowledge at this stage - to be in the form of paying for some form of upgrading of the facilities at Bruce, if you call tearing up a world class athletics track "upgrading". But the costs have not been specified. They have not been indicated by the Minister, and that does cause me concern. We are certainly talking about a world class athletic track, which was the site of the World Cup athletics in about 1986, and the venue was obviously an excellent one. We stand to lose it, according to what Mr Wood has told us.
Is this proposal really necessary and are there not any alternatives? That has not been put properly before this Assembly. I would like to see evidence that it is the only alternative, and I hope that the Minister will make some attempt, as Mr Stefaniak has called on him to do, to explain fully what the reasons are for this move and demonstrate beyond any doubt on my part and on the part of others in this place that there is no alternative to ripping up the track. I think it boils down unfortunately to a very simple equation - that there are more votes in rugby league, cricket and things of that kind than there are in athletics. There is the national status of the Bruce Stadium, as Dr Kinloch has pointed out, to be considered. There are many venues for football, but very few for athletics at a standard provided by the Bruce Stadium.
I ask the Government to take into account very seriously the problems that have been raised in this debate about this move and to provide the Assembly, as I have said, with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .